Earl Aelfheah

Commuting has increased and diversified as a result of segregated cycle lanes ( http://rachelaldred.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/160511RCSpaper-final.pdf ). But to commute in is slightly different to making local journeys. From here it requires a certain level of fitness and 'logistics' (showers, lockers at your destination etc). There are also still many hairy junctions / main roads despite improvements. And outside of the centre, we've done very little - LTNs are a way of trying to address that. Studies of LTNs show an increase in 'normal' people cycling locally, especially kids, when compared with control sites (I know people will say it isn't so). We know what you need to do to make it easier, safer and a more 'normal' activity. You create quieter routes, where traffic is restricted or removed.

The Whitty thing is just appalling. Seen video of a crowd of people outside his house this morning chanting 'traitor'. these people should be arrested in my opinion. It's targeted harassment of a good man, doing a very difficult job in the service of the public.

Cycling is in the reach of most people (especially with electric bikes). But it's scary cycling on busy roads. If you're a 'normal' (non-lycra) person, it's not appealing. We need to make it a safe easy, every day activity and that means reallocating some space away from cars and towards walking and cycling. It's a small part of the whole picture, but an important part. But again, you can only do that if the minority of car drivers give something up. I'm not sure they will. Not really. Not to the extent required.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That whilst people say they want fewer cars > > I think people are saying they want fewer (local) > car journeys - but that doesn't actually > necessarily mean fewer cars. Many people have cars > to drive a few, necessary (to them) trips - may be > happy to cut down local use (if there are > sufficient effective alternatives which they can > use - some are too old or frail to cycle the local > hills for instance and may not be able to walk > far) but still need a car. > > It is wrong to assume that less car use (until and > only if it's vastly less) will necessary translate > into fewer cars owned in areas where public > transport is more limited and you can't readily > walk anywhere you need to (or the environs other > than round Tooley St, to be exact). Yes, that's what I meant. Fewer cars driving around, not necessarily a reduction in car ownership. Although personally, I would like to see the latter too. The thing is, you won't reduce the number of cars driving around without reducing road capacity / restricting their use in some way. Most people could (most people do) manage without a car in London. Not all of course. But it's more difficult / less convenient at key times.

I like the way the UK isn't blindly 'patriotic' like some are in the US for example. I love the fact that we're self depreciating, self critical, a bit wry / cynical about our nation. Make's me proud to be British. ;-)

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Meanwhile, the council makes ?3million in a couple > of months. > Spot the winner. > And the losers. > > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > To post the other side of the argument as > > Legalalien suggests: > > > > The changes have been rushed in, with no > baseline > > data and no proper analysis of the effects. If > you > > close some side roads, even allowing for some > > 'evaporation' there will inevitably be > > displacement. The main roads already have > > illegally high levels of pollution and so this > > will only make things worse. Local, public > > transport options are inadequate, so the > > alternatives are limited. Most people will not > > cycle or walk alongside / amongst heavy fast > > moving vehicles and even the filtered streets > > still have large vehicles travelling along > them, > > some at speed. > > It is politically unrealistic to think that you > > can get people to alter their behaviour in ways > > that will significantly inconvenience them and > so > > the LTNs are a waste of money which will only > > cause division. I don't' actually hold this view. I'm making the counter argument as Legalalien suggested (but only malumbu an I (I think both broadly in favor of LTNs?) have taken them up on). That said, I am starting to come round to believing the last bit - that it might be unrealistic to think that you can get people to alter their behaviour in ways that will significantly inconvenience them. Whilst people say they want fewer cars, they generally aren't willing to forgo their own, or wrestle with the difficult trade offs and compromises that achieving this inevitably entails. Ultimately, I suspect we're kind of screwed.

To post the other side of the argument as Legalalien suggests: The changes have been rushed in, with no baseline data and no proper analysis of the effects. If you close some side roads, even allowing for some 'evaporation' there will inevitably be displacement. The main roads already have illegally high levels of pollution and so this will only make things worse. Local, public transport options are inadequate, so the alternatives are limited. Most people will not cycle or walk alongside / amongst heavy fast moving vehicles and even the filtered streets still have large vehicles travelling along them, some at speed. It is politically unrealistic to think that you can get people to alter their behaviour in ways that will significantly inconvenience them and so the LTNs are a waste of money which will only cause division.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ab29, heartened that you agree with me on > some things and not others, that?s as it should > be. Less tribalism and entrenched positions, more > getting to yes. > > Perhaps we should have a school-like experiment > where we all spend a day arguing the other side?s > position? In theory a good thing but I imagine it > would descend into sarcasm and weak > spoof-Twitter-account type humour within 5 mins. A > pity. It would be a good start if we could agree that personal attacks and name calling are a bad thing, instead of patting those responsible for it on the back.

@ab29 - you have complained about people being disrespectful and you have repeatedly resorted to personal attacks. This: "I have called you "arrogant and selfish? ... a ?know-it-all, arrogant cyclist" (in capital letters) and I stand by it... It is not, however a 'name calling' as you claim". I mean really? I don?t agree with aspects of the changes and their implementation. I agreed with @legalalien that I would support a roll back of phase 2 whilst more analysis was done on phase 1. I?ve said that I might be persuaded to support an alternative plan. I am disappointed that One Dulwich is encouraging people to back a return to the previous state, following the pattern of every other ?One? campaign across London. I am critical of this organisation. I have a different view regarding the need to reduce car usage. You cannot reduce the number of journeys whilst increasing road capacity and making it easier to drive in my opinion. You also cannot encourage active travel without creating at least some quieter routes, with less motor traffic (in my opinion). That doesn?t mean that this particular scheme doesn?t have flaws, trade offs, or compromises like any other. This is why I would dearly like people to work to improve it rather than completely scrap it and return to how thing were. I have not at any point resorted to personal attacks, except perhaps now, because I think it's reasonable to call out your behaviour. Especially when you admonish others for not being respectful.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're vaxxified > And they're ancient and they drive an ice cream van :-)

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > notimpressed Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No, most folk in Brighton aren't middle class > bores > > You obviously haven't been there since the turn of > the millennium.. :-)

re. Clean Air Dulwich - I'm not that surprised they've limited comments on their Twitter feed. If you've even remotely dipped a toe in anti-LTN Twitter, you'll see some pretty vicious stuff from a significant minority on the lunatic fringes of the debate.

@heartblock - I'm sorry to hear you feel that way for what it's worth.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > being unpleasant on Twitter > > Shock Horror ;) Twitter is an absolute swamp.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrahrah. > > I did not 'resorted to name calling' - would've > been kicked out or reprimanded (at least) by the > Admin if I did. > > Name calling: "the use of offensive names > especially to win an argument or to induce > rejection or condemnation (as of a person or > project) without objective consideration of the > facts" (Merriam-Webster dictionary). > > I did not use offensive names - if you think I > did, when and what was it?. @ab29 - Just off the bat - you have called me ?arrogant and selfish? a ?know-it-all, arrogant cyclist? suggested that I ?don?t care about anyone else? (using ALL CAPS) and accused me of suffering from a ?complete lack of empathy? (again using ALL CAPS). It?s possible to have different, but still honestly held, views. Most people on this forum express their views passionately, but keep to discussing the substance (e.g. @Rockets and others) rather than resorting to ad hominen attacks. I mean, it's up to you how you express yourself of course - but it's a bit rich to then moan about people not being respectful.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The photographing of people?s homes calling > neighbours hypocrites and worse by CAD followers > was highly unpleasant by the way. I see a CAD > follower then went around Dulwich Village > photographing private family houses and posting it > on Twitter with equally unpleasant text. > Please stop! Yeah, I do agree this isn't on.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Patronising tone of many of the pro-LTN > supporters shown on this forum is infuriating and > frankly, disrespectful. Hi Ab29 - I am sorry you feel abandoned. But it's a bit rich to talk about others being disrespectful when you've repeatedly resorted to name calling on this thread.

"We have made numerous proposals to Southwark as to how the individual measures could be adapted and improved, and how the overall scheme could be rethought, so that it can fairly achieve our shared goals of reducing traffic on all our roads, improving air quality and promoting active travel." Can we see the alternative proposal that "reduces traffic, improves air quality and promotes active travel"? Have they* published it? "Would you be happy to back a party that didn't share their manifesto?" - No I wouldn't. This is my problem with One Dulwich. *Who does fund and run the multiple 'One' groups.

One Dulwich are campaigning to have things returned to how they were. This is a fact. @Rockets - do you think One Dulwich are being prevented from articulating an alternative? That they would prefer timed closures, but are being forced, unwillingly, to campaign for a return to the previous state.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And by Boris? warm words, he?ll be back ?in public > service? soon enough Yep, and he continues to draw his taxpayer funded ?80K a year as an MP in the meantime.

@heartblock - to be clear, I was only referring to ?One Dulwich?. @Rockets - It's notable that the other 'One' groups ('One Ealing', 'One Wandsworth', 'One Oval' etc.) have followed the same pattern - They start out by stating that they're in favour of active travel, of reducing car use, etc. They suggest that they're not against change, but want sensible alterations to current schemes. They grow local support and then campaign for the reversal of all changes and a return to the previous state. It's instructive in my opinion that all of the 'One' organisations end up campaigning for the removal of LTNSs without putting forward an alternative that would actually increase active travel, reduce car use, or meet any of their other stated aims. This is the dissembling I referred to. We don't know how these organisations are funded, who runs them or how they're linked. They claim to be unrelated, grassroots groups and they clearly are successful in building local support. But you can see from their websites, the materials they put out, their campaign tactics and the way many of their supporters encourage people to come out against road changes in different neighbourhoods on social media, that there is co-ordination. I have a lot of time for those wanting to discuss how we might change / improve things, but I'm becoming increasingly cynical about these 'One' groups. They appear to be well funded and co-ordinated and whilst they have encouraged many local people to join up, aspects of their funding and governance remain opaque. I don't think it's unfair to question this. Arguably, they show some of the hallmarks of an 'astroturfing' outfit. But regardless - I simply don't buy the idea that they're being forced, unwillingly, to campaign for a return to the previous state.

They aren?t asking for timed restrictions. They are campaigning to have things returned to how they were. This is a fact. I don?t buy the explanations for how they are being prevented from articulating an alternative, how they have been forced, unwillingly, to campaign for a return to the previous state.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The anti LTN group from what I understand is to > have sensible measures put in such as timed > restrictions instead of the permanent closures The anti LTN group are asking for a return to the previous state. In other words, the removal of any restrictions on car use. They also say they want to reduce car use and pollution and encourage active travel. They don?t quite state it such stark terms, as it would seem a bit contradictory, but instead dissemble and obfuscate a fair bit. Perhaps they mean it and do believe that the best way to get people out of cars is to make driving easier and more convenient, who knows? There are others who are supportive of changes, just not these ones and that would seem a reasonable thing to debate, but to be clear, One Dulwich are calling for a return to the previous state. Clean Air Dulwich seem to be implying that this seems a little disingenuous and the owners of big cars who are campaigning for the removal of any restrictions on car use, may not all be interested in reducing car use, as they claim. I don?t necessarily agree with their post, but considering ?anti- LTN? campaigners on Twitter regularly call anyone expressing even qualified support for LTNs racist and accuse them of being complicit in the death of children living on main roads, it seems fairly mild in comparison. Also, I do suspect that at least some of those wanting to remove all road closures might be at least partly concerned about inconvenience. For some reason you never, hear this being given as even part of the reason that people want to remove restrictions.

I love the fact that everyone is calling it a private matter. Even though the video is from his offices at 3 in the afternoon on a Thursday. He also hired his 'long term friend' using taxpayers money. He also broke the social distancing rules that it was his role to create and enforce. How is it not about what he was doing in his job exactly?

Can the council do something about the cars that are overhanging the pavement on Beauval Road? You seem to have approved drop curbs, so that gardens can be paved over for cars that don't actually fit in them.